Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

360 thoughts on “Back in Ghana

1 6 7 8 9 10 12
  • Jon

    I don’t think all the documents have been released to the MSM – as far as I know, there no evidence that this has happened. However they are likely to be contained within the insurance file, so a mass release can be effected easily if someone decides to attack Wikileaks volunteers physically. I’m inclined also to guess that the passphrase has been passed by Wikileaks to the US political establishment, so as to demonstrate the insurance as genuine.

    On controlling critical websites, I think we need not worry too much about that. The people of the US have a decent history of believing in free speech, and if there is step-change in what people are allowed to publish on the internet coming from the US, I am sure there will be a backlash. In fact I am inclined towards positivity – I think there will be an almighty vendetta against WikiLeaks, and the US government will lose the fight. The information is too dispersed, and there is too much significant mainstream support for its release, to put the cat back in the bag.

  • Jon

    Anno, your political analysis is bordering on the ridiculous, as it has been for some time. That upsets me, as I think – and as your being here might go to show – that you’re a good person. I don’t sense that you’re a troublemaker, as some people are here. Or perhaps I am just regularly misreading your religiously-inspired posts?

    Condemning ‘democracy’ because we have a murderous system is ludicrous – consider the possibility that in the UK we don’t have a working representative democracy? You didn’t mention it this time around, but I’d hate to think you’d use our broken democracy as a reason to support its replacement with Sharia instead?

    I am not a Christian, nor a supporter of Christianity, but your position on ‘utterly hypocritical Christianity’ does not take into account the distinct possibility that leaders who claim to be Christian may not have a genuine connection to the faith they profess. I’d say that was particularly the case in America amongst the political elite, where a faith must be worn on the sleeve, and sometimes must be proclaimed loudly.

    Meanwhile, I am not sure I’ve read any criticism from you on other religions. It would be healthy for you to think in that direction once in a while – all religions at one time or another have demonstrated hypocrisy. Religion, I think, is another kind of system whose hierarchy wants to exercise social control over people. It is worth therefore, as I am sure I’ve mentioned in the past, regarding religion (or its dogmatic over-application) as the problem, not the solution.

    Notwithstanding my slight frustration, best wishes to you.

  • anno

    Patrick Grimm describes exactly my experience of the anti-conscience machine when I had a breakdown in 1987. But conscience and virtue, being the stock in trade of God, are one zillion times more powerful than the mind-castration machine.

    The too-scared-to-protest institutions of society, the church, your family, the medics, police and your friends, stand back in desperation when you refuse to comply with society’s submission to the satanic system. Indeed endless wars are constantly being waged against the Muslims who uphold values that are different from the Western norm.

    The Qur’an states that Allah calls us to freedom and mercy, while Satan calls us to darkness, perversion and fear of worldly ruin.

    It’s perfectly clear to me that David Cameron has been colluding with the Zio-bankers to engineer the redaction of the welfare state which we are now seeing. He has Menorah parties in No 10, with his cronies. But this public schoolboy, Zio-satanism plays on the fears of isolation of normal human beings.

    I joined the far vaster world of clean-hearted victims of anti-Muslim war-crime, who know that they are only being targeted because they refuse to submit to the scary money-grasping machine. We can see that the Rothschild machine is worn out and desperate, and that Islam is going to power soon. I am far more worried by the fact that us Muslims still think that they have to play the Western game, lying and getting ensnared in un-Islamic vices, than the vast expanse of living dead who have been processed by the machine.

    The powers that be keep throwing furniture in the path of their pursuers, but the inexorable mercy of God is swifter and vaster than the money-grinders who try to destroy human-beings.

    The Jewish holocaust happened and it was a long time coming. The black slave-trade happened and it was a long time coming. Constantine in the 3rd century A.D. was waging constant wars in his time against the people of Africa who refused to change from belief in God to belief in Trinity.

    The machine processes people into good citizens and then leaves them alone. WE ARE BEING PROCESSED AT THE MOMENT by the George Bush statement that because the US had superior fire-power to Saddam, that it would win. But the silly zios can’t see that winning by force has lost them their moral standing in the eyes of the crushed human race.

    What used to be obvious only to Muslims is now written across the horizons: Satan’s power to destroy is empty compared to Allah’s power to create and sustain.

  • Jon

    Zio-Satanism? Crumbs, Anno – you are letting your anger make you sound quite irrational.

    The powers that be are, for the umpteenth time, are NOT anti-Muslim. Iraq and Afghanistan were not invaded for religious reasons: you’ve talked about the damaging power of capital before, and I don’t see why you would reject that as sufficient reasoning?

    If you’re genuinely open to seeing violence and full-scale war and all the suffering that goes with that as being part of the neo-capitalist system, then I’ll gladly share some extra thoughts on that topic. But I’d need to see that I wouldn’t be wasting my time first.

    Incidentally, what do you mean by “The Jewish Holocaust [and] the black slave trade… [were] a long time coming?”

  • anno

    Jon, and best wishes to you as well.

    The system of democracy, the power of the majority is completely wrong. We should be ruled by sharia, not human beings. But democracy as it now stands is mitigated by the decency of Protestant Reform, which threw out the excesses of theocratic megalomania by church, pope or their criminal adherents. Our system has become viciously corrupted in recent centuries by the rise of a replacement religious tyranny of Zionism.

    Sharia as it now stands is unreformed. The law of God MUST be obeyed, but Mullahs do not have the authority to do anything more than persuade, UNTIL the citizens themselves submit to being regulated by Sharia. Islam has to learn the humility of their prophet, peace be upon him, before Allah entrusts the management of the world to the Mullahs’ arrogant hands.

    I predict humiliating defeat in Afghanistan, through bitter civil war, the same as Iraq, UNLESS AND UNTIL the scholars of Islam cease to try to duplicate the mistakes of the previous generations of Caliphates. They have to abandon Macchiavelian deceit and political lying and they have to make themselves humble again, before Allah rewards them with worldy power.

  • anno

    Jon

    I was referring to the link posted by apostate, which compared holocaust guilt with slave-trade guilt. In my view, these events took place and were provoked by Zio-satanists who were opposed to the civilised Christian values that persisted at the time.

    It appears that these type of events, in which I include Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, result from a combination of zio-Satanism and wealthy vested- interest colonials. You can trace the thread of anti-Semitism in Germany and of anti-Africanism in Europe long before the events took place. but the catalyst is always sato-zionism, however much you state or Obama states that persecution of the Muslims is not their motivation.

    As to the Holocaust, the sato-zionistic purpose achieved their target result: the transformation of thousands of years of Jewish worship into apartheid occupation of Palestine.

  • angrysoba

    “In my view, these events took place and were provoked by Zio-satanists who were opposed to the civilised Christian values that persisted at the time.”

    The civilized Christian values of Nazi Germany? Riiiiiight!

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    British drones built on Israeli design

    Britain got its ‘Watchkeeper’ drone into the air for the first time earlier this year.

    Britain is introducing two new models of UAV; the Watchkeeper 180 and the Watchkeeper 450. Both UAVs are based on Israeli designs (the Hermes 180 and 450).

    The Watchkeeper 450 is a 450 kg (992 pound) aircraft with a payload of 150 kg. It is also being equipped to carry Hellfire missiles for support of troops in Afghanistan. This UAV is already designed to carry two extra fuel tanks under its wings. Each of these fuel tanks weighs more than the 50 kg (110 pound) Hellfire missile. The Watchkeeper 450 is 6.5 meters (20 feet long) and has a 11.3 meter (35 foot) wingspan. It can stay in the air for up to 20 hours per sortie, and fly as high as 6,500 meters (20,000 feet). The Hermes 450 is the primary UAV for the Israeli armed forces.

    The smaller (4.5 meters/14 feet long, 6.5 meter/20 foot wingspan) Watchkeeper 180 weighs 196 kg (430 pounds), has a maximum payload of 35 kg (77 pounds) and can stay in the air for ten hours at a time.

    Both UAVs have day/night cameras and can supply ground troops with live video.

    British troops have already been using other UAVs, and are convinced of the benefits of live video in support of combat operations. It is expected that Britain will begin using these craft to fly-over Iran and give advance information to special forces reconnaissance missions laying laser designators near nuclear sites.

  • angrysoba

    By the way, some commentator here had theorized that Assange et al. must be “controlled assets” and I’ve seen people seriously asserting that WikiLeaks MUST be CIA-Mossad-Zio-Satanic-Banking-Usurious-Trilateral Commission-Bildergerby [edit according to prejudice] because after all why would the mainstream media take Assange so seriously when it continues to “blacklist” Craig Murray and Scott Ritter?

    Maybe because almost any newspaper in the world is going to publish the contents of archives that are opened thirty years after the fact. It is standard to read about “damning revelations” from generations ago which usually amounts to some top politician calling another top politician a nob. Just because each and every opening of the archives does not reveal secret plans to overturn the entire known course of history in favour of some exotic worldview doesn’t mean it isn’t newsworthy.

    Just to give you an example, poor ol’ Robert Fisk has chosen now, of all times, to go through the diplomatic cables of Ireland’s wartime diplomatic service. The Independent still publishes it yet it would be silly to assert that his hapless pieces are some charade to cover up the involvement of Roosevelt in the Pearl Harbor attack or the evil Zio-Satanists in 9/11 or the sinking of the Lusitania or whatever other fervent faith-based beliefs are popular among the conspiracy crowd.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-survival-of-the-neutral–irelands-second-world-war-2150836.html

    By the way, has anyone seen this lunatic editorial that appeared in the lunatic Washington Times, itself a paper run by a religious nutbag:

    “Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. vows that he is looking into possible criminal charges against Mr. Assange. It is too late for tough talk. At this point, we are beyond indictments and courts. The damage has been done; people have died – and will die because of the actions of this puerile, self-absorbed narcissist. News reports say the WikiLeaks founder is hiding out in England. If that’s true, we should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him.”

  • anno

    Jon

    The humiliation of a whole society is the unintended consequence of greed, according to you.

    Today I heard an absolute-total dumbo economist on Peter Day’s World of Business programme on the World service, state that in future our economy could progress without any increase in energy consumption, but purely through human ingenuity.

    What! We humiliated a whole society and we didn’t even need our cut of the oil to keep our bankrupt economy going?

    He should take a peep at the motorway system one day. Apparently two days of snow nearly brought our petrol stations and supermarkets to crisis shortages.

    Brits are accused by yanks of not being willing to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, because our officers are scared of duplicating US genocide? Jon, our prime minister Blair, seeing the desperate need for oil security, hitched us up to severely satanic, US-Zionist anti-Muslim genocide. You can be a Iraqi-holocaust denier if you like but I still have some pride that this country is better than Blair’s criminal, Israel-dwelling mind.

  • angrysoba

    Ruth: ” some including myself believe it’s run by intelligence services.”

    Ruth, I’m sure you’re a nice lady and everything, but you believe EVERYTHING is run by the intelligence services. Presaging everything you say, with “I believe…” and “I think…” followed by assertions of “…is controlled by the intelligence services” is not an argument.

    Neither is this:

    “Also interesting was how the bits about Russia being a Mafia state emerged just before the FIFA vote”

    If by “just before” you mean “from about twenty years ago and continuously, since then” then I would agree that it has emerged that Russia is a Mafia state just before the FIFA vote.

    Actually, I can’t begin to understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that those gallant English gents Becks, Wills and Cammers jetted off to bid for a white elephant that they knew they wouldn’t get and so Assange skillfully leaked some suggestions that Russia might be a bit corrupt just beforehand to control the official narrative or something like that?

    Maybe a better explanation would be that the English contingent’s attempts to rig the vote were less adept than Russia’s attempt to do so and if they look a bit like prize twats now they only have themselves to blame. We don’t need conspiracy to explain that. Just run of the mill greasy palming.

  • anno

    angryfanny

    I don’t see the thrush of what you are trying to imply! You think that the German people are Nazis? I agree with you that at this time the blood of Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine is on the English hands. But I think that the English people and the German people are peaceloving, but somehow reluctant to hang their criminal leaders.Blair could easily return to power same as Hitler a second time!

  • Clark

    I read (or maybe saw a video of an Assange interview) that WikiLeaks had given the entire set of Cablegate documents to the five papers. The papers go through the cables, assigning cables to the reporters most familiar with the subjects, who work out what should be redacted. Redactions are reported back to WikiLeaks. Also, releases are reported back to WikiLeaks, who then release the same material. So it is plausible that gossip and trivia would come out first – it’s easy to vet, and hey, these are journalists, right? So “keep watching” seems sensible.

    A question to all the “WikiLeaks is fake” supporters – who knew, and who didn’t? Who is faking being shocked and outraged, and who is genuinely surprised? I’m suspending my (mild) disbelief and pretending that WikiLeaks is proven to be genuine, ‘cos it feels good and lots of fun!

    Vronsky, thanks for the Sibel Edmonds link. That’s the first decent test for Cablegate that I’ve seen.

  • anno

    itchylips

    It’s perfectly obvious why Qatar got the World Cup, because the buggers are still baling out the world economy with real, un-funny petro-money. As to Russia, it’s bigger than the UK. I remember roller-skating up and down an empty drive all the world cup when I was child. Of course they knew they were going to lose the bid. Don’t patronise.

  • angrysoba

    “angryfanny”

    Hoo hoo! Naughty word!

    “I don’t see the thrush of what you are trying to imply!”

    There is no “thrush”! You have made a flurry of rather bizarre posts in which you repeatedly refer to “zio-Satanism” or “sato-zionism” and suggested that the Holocaust was perpetrated by what you call “Zio-Satanists” in opposition to “civilized Christian values” prevalent at the time.

    No, again, you don’t need to invent some weird conspiratorial explanation for how the Holocaust happened. Hitler was a rabid anti-semite who hated Jews (and gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally-ill and disabled, Slavs, Muslims too by the way, Jehovah’s witnesses etc…etc…) and he was fortunate to be surrounded by somewhat like-minded “civilized Christians”.

  • anno

    Yeah, weird stuff just happens from time to time. Nuffin to do wi’ me, guv. i wasn’t born at the time.

    But I have just lived through 13 years of murderous violence instigated partly by our government. The word on the street is:

    If people’s got the weapons, why’s people get surprised?

    I warn you, aqngrysoba, if we do not hang Blair for war-crimes, he’ll be back doing the same like Hitler, hand in hand with the Milibands.

  • Alfred

    “Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. vows that he is looking into possible criminal charges against Mr. Assange.”

    Looking into? Making stolen classified documents public is or is not a criminal act. I’d assume that it is. If so, what’s he waiting for? For the operation to achieve its intended objectives before winding it up?

    Clark is correct in stating that all of the 250,000 stolen cables are in the hands of the media, or so it is implied by this Guardian story:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/how-us-embassy-cables-leaked

  • Clark

    Look at the list of dates down the left side of the page MJ linked. The years Sibel Edmonds is interested in are absent. Is that list getting filled in?

  • glenn

    Angry: you quoted the moonie-run Washington Times as saying, “News reports say the WikiLeaks founder is hiding out in England. If that’s true, we should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him.”

    Yes indeed. Just like any other such target – if you identify the evil-doer as being in a certain area, why, we should kill everyone in that zone! Drop a hellfire missile on the crowd he might be in. Destroy the block of houses in which we suspect he currently resides. Heck, if he’s suspected of being in some particular restaurant, blow up that restaurant at once! That was all considered fair play in Iraq, even before “shock and awe”.

    Do you suppose these people think for a moment before running their tough-talk editorials, or rethugs with their talking points? I believe the “treat him like any other high profile terrorist” originated with a tweet from the teabagger central control, the Palin compound itself. Although who precisely is being ‘terrorised’ (apart from powerful politicians being terrorised with their own words) is not clear.

  • Alfred

    “Ruth, I’m sure you’re a nice lady and everything, but you believe EVERYTHING is run by the intelligence services.”

    Angry, why don’t you just come out with it, the standard taunt of all those who buy into the MSM narrative and call Ruth a CONSPIRACY THEORIST.

    Not that it negates the force of anything that she has said, but it makes it clearer, exactly where you stand.

    Not that I’m calling you a shill, or anything.

    What I would like to know though is what you and other supporters of Wikileaks think that Wikileaks has told us that it is so important for citizens of a democratic society to know.

    That there were WMD in Iraq?

    That Osama bin Laden is alive and well and directing the war against the US from Pakistan?

    That Putin is an alpha dog?

  • MJ

    “…are you sure it isn’t just the ones released so far?”

    Not at all sure since you mention it. In fact, having had a closer look, I see that at the top of the page it says “Currently released so far… 931 / 251,287”

  • glenn

    Alfred: Well… we do know now that the Germans are kind of dull and lumbering, the French are rather excitable, the Italians are childish and sexist, the Russians pretty much run a mafia state, the Afghans are corrupt to a man, and that the British are obsequious to the US to the point of embarrassment. Want more? Well, the US likes to spy on everyone, the British royals are oiks, the Chinese are taking over the world, and our Middle-East stooges all say what they know Amerika wants them to say (particularly in regard to Iran, and they say nothing about Israel).

    Isn’t that enough for you to be going on with?

  • Clark

    Collateral Murder.

    The UK government biased an inquiry in the favour of the US. Prince Andrew supports BAE Systems corruption in Saudi Arabia. The incoming UK government promised to be pro-US.

    Only 249,000 still to come, can’t be much left…

  • angrysoba

    Glenn: “Do you suppose these people think for a moment before running their tough-talk editorials, or rethugs with their talking points?”

    No, probably not. I think the editorial is borderline criminal in its irresponsibility. It’s effectively a fatwa.

    Alfred,

    “Looking into? Making stolen classified documents public is or is not a criminal act. I’d assume that it is. If so, what’s he waiting for? For the operation to achieve its intended objectives before winding it up?”

    Alfred, I didn’t put that editorial up there so that we can chew over the relative merits of the events described in the piece. It is an obviously lunatic piece which is littered with factual errors and incoherent ranting. I am simply putting it up there to show you that some of the right-wing crazies are very serious about Wikileaks. Palin and Huckabee too.

    But as you asked, it is clear that the leaking by an enlisted man of these documents is illegal and unsurprisingly Bradley Manning will be court-martialled. There is surely no case for saying it is not a court-martiallable offence. Yet, whether Assange’s actions are illegal is probably a more tricky legal question. If Assange is guilty then why not the NYT, the Guardian and Der Spiegel?

    I have no idea where US law stands on that. According to Assange, the Pentagon has been trying to build a case for saying Assange is guilty of espionage but they have been unable to do so yet.

  • glenn

    It seems pretty crazy to accuse Assange of espionage (as some American did on R4’s World At One today). Assange has performed the same function as the telephone, newspapers or the Internet itself – a conduit for such information. It’s amazing that people go on the record accusing Assange of stealing secrets, when it’s perfectly obvious he hasn’t stolen anything. First Amendment rights that cover freedom of the press will keep the courts tied up indefinitely should any prosecution actually be brought to bear, as the US administration knows full well, which is why they haven’t even tried going down that route.

    The question of the NYT, Guardian et al being guilty of the same were brought up in the same interview, but dismissed because they weren’t the primary source. Naturally, our BBC stooge newshound didn’t embarrass her correspondent by pointing out Assange wasn’t the primary source either.

  • angrysoba

    “Angry, why don’t you just come out with it, the standard taunt of all those who buy into the MSM narrative and call Ruth a CONSPIRACY THEORIST.”

    I don’t know what other term applies when someone is repeatedly making unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy. You do it yourself with your theories about how the BNP is an intelligence services front, and Wikileaks etc…etc…

    “Not that I’m calling you a shill, or anything.”

    Which is the standard taunt of the conspiracy theorist against anyone who doesn’t believe your theories without evidence. The difference is that the word “shill” is both connotively and denotively derogatory. Not that it bothers me at all.

    “What I would like to know though is what you and other supporters of Wikileaks think that Wikileaks has told us that it is so important for citizens of a democratic society to know.”

    I think this is just a meaningless question. The document dump is simply a vast amount of chatter between diplomats. The fact that you feel it MUST contain really Earth-shattering secrets is your problem when they don’t appear.

    Other people have already made that point here much better than I (I think CheebaCow, for example and maybe Vronsky). But like I said before the opening of any archives is usually a newsworthy event in itself. The fact that these are being opened so soon after their creation makes it even more so.

    As for being a “supporter” of Wikileaks, my support is tepid at best. I think that this guy cannot be as smart as he thinks he is to know that what he is doing isn’t dangerous or that he can can predict that the fallout from these leaks will be less than the fallout of keeping diplomatic cables confidential. Now, clearly, when you are anti-war you need to have another avenue of conflict resolution and surely the best of those is diplomacy. These leaks effectively cripple the avenue of diplomacy at least towards those who might want to speak frankly in confidence to US diplomats. I think it is fatuous to assume that there is some principle of human affairs which make it much better for everything to be out in the open.

  • angrysoba

    “The question of the NYT, Guardian et al being guilty of the same were brought up in the same interview, but dismissed because they weren’t the primary source. Naturally, our BBC stooge newshound didn’t embarrass her correspondent by pointing out Assange wasn’t the primary source either.”

    Well, exactly. That’s what I mean and that was part of my response to Alfred who thinks if something is illegal it should be immediately apparent. I’m saying this is not so. I am saying that some US authorities might be ATTEMPTING to pin charges on Assange but haven’t been able to find a legal basis.

    And yes, the espionage thing is again something that they can’t pin on him but would like to. We can, of course, think up some kind of hypothetical scenario. If Assange were being bankrolled by, say, the Taliban to try to expose all confidential information then there would be a case. It’s almost certain that he would be under surveillance right now to see if he is working for someone else.

1 6 7 8 9 10 12

Comments are closed.